Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Draining The Swamp
Thursday, October 19, 2017 12:30 PM
SHINYGOODGUY
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: This is turning into a "Trump's Greatest Failures" thread, but we already have one of those http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61905 and I think that title BEST expresses the topic of how people of ALL political persuasions see Trump's greatest failures, so I'm going to put my opinions about Trump's failures in there. I just want to make a comment to partisans of both stripes here: If you're a partisan - in other words, a die-hard defender of your party, everyone in it, and everything that it does - well I hope that description is enough to make you see the problem with that POV. But just it case it doesn't, I'm going to beat the point to death a little bit more: You're making the mistake of thinking that just because you think one party is "evil" that must mean that the other party is "good". But these are politicians. I doubt that you can find one honest one in any random set of 100, in either party. I acknowledge that there are a few more "good" politicians in the Democratic Party than in the GOP, but I can name them on the fingers of one hand; they make up a vanishingly small number no matter which party you look at and none of them achieve any significant, systemic, lasting benefit for the average person anyway. You have to judge the party as a whole. ****** In KPO's thread about "The State of Freedom in Russia", he acknowledges that he's completely uninterested in "the state of freedom" in any other nation BESIDES Russia, and that includes the state of freedom in his own nation (Britain) and the state of freedom in the USA. I asked him what accounted for his laser focus on Russia. There are a lot of venal answers to that question, but in my view there is only one legitimate answer, only one reason why someone should focus on Russian events and policies, even to the exclusion of events in and policies of your own nation, and that is if you see Russia as such an immediate existential threat that it requires ditching every other concern, to hell with civil liberties, the deficit, and the marketplace! It's "all hands on deck and man battle stations!" When I look at the threat posed by Russia, I simply don't see the need for that kind of response. The only REAL threat that they pose is de-dollarization (forcing the world off the petrodollar, which has given us an open credit card with the rest of the world since 1973), and even in THAT case, the answer isn't military or political, it should consist of us minding our financial matters better. In fact, when I look at every single major problem that the USA has, from ... staggering wealth inequality to massive private debt to potentially unstable banks to the loss of the petrodollar to a failed health care policy to environmental collapse to loss of manufacturing to completely unbalanced trade to illegal immigrants to disunited public to loss of commonsense values to unemployment to loss of civil liberties to (add more here) ... every single problem in the USA was caused by our own politicians. Politicians who repeatedly stabbed us in the back, over and over, in favor of endless wars and ever-higher profits and rampant financialization and overconsumption based on debt. All for their corporate lords, who rake in the rewards while we get the shaft. It wasn't "Russia" who got us to this point, or "Libya" or "Iraq" or any of the phony "enemies" that are constantly being popped up as distractions. It wasn't Trump who got us here, or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton. It wasn't even "terrorism". It wasn't "Democrats" OR "Republicans", it was BOTH of them. Each party, in its own way, got us to this point of failure. Democrats try to put a sweet syrup on their defections while Republicans champion their actions as rightful policy, but in the end it took the combined effort of both parties, working for decades and decades, to get us to this point. At least, that's how I see it. ----------- Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
Thursday, October 19, 2017 1:12 PM
JEWELSTAITEFAN
Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY: Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: This is turning into a "Trump's Greatest Failures" thread, but we already have one of those http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61905 and I think that title BEST expresses the topic of how people of ALL political persuasions see Trump's greatest failures, so I'm going to put my opinions about Trump's failures in there. I just want to make a comment to partisans of both stripes here: If you're a partisan - in other words, a die-hard defender of your party, everyone in it, and everything that it does - well I hope that description is enough to make you see the problem with that POV. But just it case it doesn't, I'm going to beat the point to death a little bit more: You're making the mistake of thinking that just because you think one party is "evil" that must mean that the other party is "good". But these are politicians. I doubt that you can find one honest one in any random set of 100, in either party. I acknowledge that there are a few more "good" politicians in the Democratic Party than in the GOP, but I can name them on the fingers of one hand; they make up a vanishingly small number no matter which party you look at and none of them achieve any significant, systemic, lasting benefit for the average person anyway. You have to judge the party as a whole. *** In fact, when I look at every single major problem that the USA has, from ... staggering wealth inequality to massive private debt to potentially unstable banks to the loss of the petrodollar to a failed health care policy to environmental collapse to loss of manufacturing to completely unbalanced trade to illegal immigrants to disunited public to loss of commonsense values to unemployment to loss of civil liberties to (add more here) ... every single problem in the USA was caused by our own politicians. It wasn't "Democrats" OR "Republicans", it was BOTH of them. Each party, in its own way, got us to this point of failure. Democrats try to put a sweet syrup on their defections while Republicans champion their actions as rightful policy, but in the end it took the combined effort of both parties, working for decades and decades, to get us to this point. At least, that's how I see it. There might be those who think along the lines that one party is the root of all evil. I think that person or persons should be dealt with on an individual basis. But to try and high-jack a thread because you don't agree with a person's POV; or YOU feel that it doesn't fairly bring into question, or fairly deal, with the topic at hand.....well, I suggest that if it offends your sensibilities to that degree, then, by all means, do not contribute to the thread in question. Boycott the thread, if you will, in protest. Several here have made contributions that I would consider off-topic, but I have not asked them to leave or refrain from offering responses. Might I suggest that if you feel a response/contribution to this thread is off-topic/not to your liking; then, don't respond to that particular response. That person or persons will get the hint and choose to either stay on topic, or not offer up a response. Again, it is only a suggestion. You can do whatever floats your boat. Actually, I'll change my response in mid-answer: Go ahead, suggest away! Although I don't agree with you that this has become a Greatest Failures TrumpFest; you have every right to try and divert contributions to another thread. FEEL FREE TO DO SO!!! SGG
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: This is turning into a "Trump's Greatest Failures" thread, but we already have one of those http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61905 and I think that title BEST expresses the topic of how people of ALL political persuasions see Trump's greatest failures, so I'm going to put my opinions about Trump's failures in there. I just want to make a comment to partisans of both stripes here: If you're a partisan - in other words, a die-hard defender of your party, everyone in it, and everything that it does - well I hope that description is enough to make you see the problem with that POV. But just it case it doesn't, I'm going to beat the point to death a little bit more: You're making the mistake of thinking that just because you think one party is "evil" that must mean that the other party is "good". But these are politicians. I doubt that you can find one honest one in any random set of 100, in either party. I acknowledge that there are a few more "good" politicians in the Democratic Party than in the GOP, but I can name them on the fingers of one hand; they make up a vanishingly small number no matter which party you look at and none of them achieve any significant, systemic, lasting benefit for the average person anyway. You have to judge the party as a whole. *** In fact, when I look at every single major problem that the USA has, from ... staggering wealth inequality to massive private debt to potentially unstable banks to the loss of the petrodollar to a failed health care policy to environmental collapse to loss of manufacturing to completely unbalanced trade to illegal immigrants to disunited public to loss of commonsense values to unemployment to loss of civil liberties to (add more here) ... every single problem in the USA was caused by our own politicians. It wasn't "Democrats" OR "Republicans", it was BOTH of them. Each party, in its own way, got us to this point of failure. Democrats try to put a sweet syrup on their defections while Republicans champion their actions as rightful policy, but in the end it took the combined effort of both parties, working for decades and decades, to get us to this point. At least, that's how I see it.
Thursday, October 19, 2017 1:36 PM
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY: There might be those who think along the lines that one party is the root of all evil. I think that person or persons should be dealt with on an individual basis. But to try and high-jack a thread because you don't agree with a person's POV; or YOU feel that it doesn't fairly bring into question, or fairly deal, with the topic at hand.....well, I suggest that if it offends your sensibilities to that degree, then, by all means, do not contribute to the thread in question. Boycott the thread, if you will, in protest. Several here have made contributions that I would consider off-topic, but I have not asked them to leave or refrain from offering responses. Might I suggest that if you feel a response/contribution to this thread is off-topic/not to your liking; then, don't respond to that particular response. That person or persons will get the hint and choose to either stay on topic, or not offer up a response. Again, it is only a suggestion. You can do whatever floats your boat. Actually, I'll change my response in mid-answer: Go ahead, suggest away! Although I don't agree with you that this has become a Greatest Failures TrumpFest; you have every right to try and divert contributions to another thread. FEEL FREE TO DO SO!!! SGG Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: This is turning into a "Trump's Greatest Failures" thread, but we already have one of those http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61905 and I think that title BEST expresses the topic of how people of ALL political persuasions see Trump's greatest failures, so I'm going to put my opinions about Trump's failures in there. I just want to make a comment to partisans of both stripes here: If you're a partisan - in other words, a die-hard defender of your party, everyone in it, and everything that it does - well I hope that description is enough to make you see the problem with that POV. But just it case it doesn't, I'm going to beat the point to death a little bit more: You're making the mistake of thinking that just because you think one party is "evil" that must mean that the other party is "good". But these are politicians. I doubt that you can find one honest one in any random set of 100, in either party. I acknowledge that there are a few more "good" politicians in the Democratic Party than in the GOP, but I can name them on the fingers of one hand; they make up a vanishingly small number no matter which party you look at and none of them achieve any significant, systemic, lasting benefit for the average person anyway. You have to judge the party as a whole. ****** In KPO's thread about "The State of Freedom in Russia", he acknowledges that he's completely uninterested in "the state of freedom" in any other nation BESIDES Russia, and that includes the state of freedom in his own nation (Britain) and the state of freedom in the USA. I asked him what accounted for his laser focus on Russia. There are a lot of venal answers to that question, but in my view there is only one legitimate answer, only one reason why someone should focus on Russian events and policies, even to the exclusion of events in and policies of your own nation, and that is if you see Russia as such an immediate existential threat that it requires ditching every other concern, to hell with civil liberties, the deficit, and the marketplace! It's "all hands on deck and man battle stations!" When I look at the threat posed by Russia, I simply don't see the need for that kind of response. The only REAL threat that they pose is de-dollarization (forcing the world off the petrodollar, which has given us an open credit card with the rest of the world since 1973), and even in THAT case, the answer isn't military or political, it should consist of us minding our financial matters better. In fact, when I look at every single major problem that the USA has, from ... staggering wealth inequality to massive private debt to potentially unstable banks to the loss of the petrodollar to a failed health care policy to environmental collapse to loss of manufacturing to completely unbalanced trade to illegal immigrants to disunited public to loss of commonsense values to unemployment to loss of civil liberties to (add more here) ... every single problem in the USA was caused by our own politicians. Politicians who repeatedly stabbed us in the back, over and over, in favor of endless wars and ever-higher profits and rampant financialization and overconsumption based on debt. It wasn't "Democrats" OR "Republicans", it was BOTH of them. Each party, in its own way, got us to this point of failure. Democrats try to put a sweet syrup on their defections while Republicans champion their actions as rightful policy, but in the end it took the combined effort of both parties, working for decades and decades, to get us to this point. At least, that's how I see it. I had conjured "Draining the Swamp" translated to "Trump's Greatest Achievements" and "Trump's Greatest Failures" was the opposite. I am interested in your definition of Establishment, and why you feel it a sticking point. I'm lost about your viewpoint. I also think that your absence in this thread during some feverish posting rates contributed to derailing.
Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY: There might be those who think along the lines that one party is the root of all evil. I think that person or persons should be dealt with on an individual basis. But to try and high-jack a thread because you don't agree with a person's POV; or YOU feel that it doesn't fairly bring into question, or fairly deal, with the topic at hand.....well, I suggest that if it offends your sensibilities to that degree, then, by all means, do not contribute to the thread in question. Boycott the thread, if you will, in protest. Several here have made contributions that I would consider off-topic, but I have not asked them to leave or refrain from offering responses. Might I suggest that if you feel a response/contribution to this thread is off-topic/not to your liking; then, don't respond to that particular response. That person or persons will get the hint and choose to either stay on topic, or not offer up a response. Again, it is only a suggestion. You can do whatever floats your boat. Actually, I'll change my response in mid-answer: Go ahead, suggest away! Although I don't agree with you that this has become a Greatest Failures TrumpFest; you have every right to try and divert contributions to another thread. FEEL FREE TO DO SO!!! SGG Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: This is turning into a "Trump's Greatest Failures" thread, but we already have one of those http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61905 and I think that title BEST expresses the topic of how people of ALL political persuasions see Trump's greatest failures, so I'm going to put my opinions about Trump's failures in there. I just want to make a comment to partisans of both stripes here: If you're a partisan - in other words, a die-hard defender of your party, everyone in it, and everything that it does - well I hope that description is enough to make you see the problem with that POV. But just it case it doesn't, I'm going to beat the point to death a little bit more: You're making the mistake of thinking that just because you think one party is "evil" that must mean that the other party is "good". But these are politicians. I doubt that you can find one honest one in any random set of 100, in either party. I acknowledge that there are a few more "good" politicians in the Democratic Party than in the GOP, but I can name them on the fingers of one hand; they make up a vanishingly small number no matter which party you look at and none of them achieve any significant, systemic, lasting benefit for the average person anyway. You have to judge the party as a whole. ****** In KPO's thread about "The State of Freedom in Russia", he acknowledges that he's completely uninterested in "the state of freedom" in any other nation BESIDES Russia, and that includes the state of freedom in his own nation (Britain) and the state of freedom in the USA. I asked him what accounted for his laser focus on Russia. There are a lot of venal answers to that question, but in my view there is only one legitimate answer, only one reason why someone should focus on Russian events and policies, even to the exclusion of events in and policies of your own nation, and that is if you see Russia as such an immediate existential threat that it requires ditching every other concern, to hell with civil liberties, the deficit, and the marketplace! It's "all hands on deck and man battle stations!" When I look at the threat posed by Russia, I simply don't see the need for that kind of response. The only REAL threat that they pose is de-dollarization (forcing the world off the petrodollar, which has given us an open credit card with the rest of the world since 1973), and even in THAT case, the answer isn't military or political, it should consist of us minding our financial matters better. In fact, when I look at every single major problem that the USA has, from ... staggering wealth inequality to massive private debt to potentially unstable banks to the loss of the petrodollar to a failed health care policy to environmental collapse to loss of manufacturing to completely unbalanced trade to illegal immigrants to disunited public to loss of commonsense values to unemployment to loss of civil liberties to (add more here) ... every single problem in the USA was caused by our own politicians. Politicians who repeatedly stabbed us in the back, over and over, in favor of endless wars and ever-higher profits and rampant financialization and overconsumption based on debt. It wasn't "Democrats" OR "Republicans", it was BOTH of them. Each party, in its own way, got us to this point of failure. Democrats try to put a sweet syrup on their defections while Republicans champion their actions as rightful policy, but in the end it took the combined effort of both parties, working for decades and decades, to get us to this point. At least, that's how I see it.
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: This is turning into a "Trump's Greatest Failures" thread, but we already have one of those http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61905 and I think that title BEST expresses the topic of how people of ALL political persuasions see Trump's greatest failures, so I'm going to put my opinions about Trump's failures in there. I just want to make a comment to partisans of both stripes here: If you're a partisan - in other words, a die-hard defender of your party, everyone in it, and everything that it does - well I hope that description is enough to make you see the problem with that POV. But just it case it doesn't, I'm going to beat the point to death a little bit more: You're making the mistake of thinking that just because you think one party is "evil" that must mean that the other party is "good". But these are politicians. I doubt that you can find one honest one in any random set of 100, in either party. I acknowledge that there are a few more "good" politicians in the Democratic Party than in the GOP, but I can name them on the fingers of one hand; they make up a vanishingly small number no matter which party you look at and none of them achieve any significant, systemic, lasting benefit for the average person anyway. You have to judge the party as a whole. ****** In KPO's thread about "The State of Freedom in Russia", he acknowledges that he's completely uninterested in "the state of freedom" in any other nation BESIDES Russia, and that includes the state of freedom in his own nation (Britain) and the state of freedom in the USA. I asked him what accounted for his laser focus on Russia. There are a lot of venal answers to that question, but in my view there is only one legitimate answer, only one reason why someone should focus on Russian events and policies, even to the exclusion of events in and policies of your own nation, and that is if you see Russia as such an immediate existential threat that it requires ditching every other concern, to hell with civil liberties, the deficit, and the marketplace! It's "all hands on deck and man battle stations!" When I look at the threat posed by Russia, I simply don't see the need for that kind of response. The only REAL threat that they pose is de-dollarization (forcing the world off the petrodollar, which has given us an open credit card with the rest of the world since 1973), and even in THAT case, the answer isn't military or political, it should consist of us minding our financial matters better. In fact, when I look at every single major problem that the USA has, from ... staggering wealth inequality to massive private debt to potentially unstable banks to the loss of the petrodollar to a failed health care policy to environmental collapse to loss of manufacturing to completely unbalanced trade to illegal immigrants to disunited public to loss of commonsense values to unemployment to loss of civil liberties to (add more here) ... every single problem in the USA was caused by our own politicians. Politicians who repeatedly stabbed us in the back, over and over, in favor of endless wars and ever-higher profits and rampant financialization and overconsumption based on debt. It wasn't "Democrats" OR "Republicans", it was BOTH of them. Each party, in its own way, got us to this point of failure. Democrats try to put a sweet syrup on their defections while Republicans champion their actions as rightful policy, but in the end it took the combined effort of both parties, working for decades and decades, to get us to this point. At least, that's how I see it.
Thursday, October 19, 2017 7:31 PM
SECOND
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY: Plus the response by some in the news talking also using quote marks in their rhetoric - as though established norms within our society are negative enemies of the people at large.
Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:11 PM
OONJERAH
Thursday, October 19, 2017 9:13 PM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Quote: Before I answer your veiled attempt at "high-jacking" this thread, I want to ask you and your cohort something .... But to try and high-jack a thread because you don't agree with a person's POV; or YOU feel that it doesn't fairly bring into question, or fairly deal, with the topic at hand ... Several here have made contributions that I would consider off-topic, but I have not asked them to leave or refrain from offering responses.
Quote: Forbes ... How to be President : the Art of the Deal ... are the same thing for Trump. Hmmm?
Quote: The 12 most damning Bob Corker quotes about Donald Trump http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/09/politics/trump-corker-quotes/index.html (CNN) — Bob Corker went off on Donald Trump Sunday night. For 25 minutes, the Tennessee Republican senator unloaded lots (and lots) of pent-up frustrations to New York Times' reporter Jonathan Martin. ...
Quote: There might be those who think along the lines that one party is the root of all evil. I think that person or persons should be dealt with on an individual basis. -SHINY
Quote: I am interested in your definition of Establishment, and why you feel it a sticking point. I'm lost about your viewpoint.
Quote: SIG's assertion that Party must be evaluated as a whole and not look at select goals and achievements of leaders within the Party is where she loses me, and seems to me to contribute to the Establishment problem.
Friday, October 20, 2017 2:41 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Oonjerah: George W. Bush comes out of retirement to deliver a veiled rebuke of Trump https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george-w-bush-comes-out-of-retirement-to-deliver-a-veiled-rebuke-of-trump/2017/10/19/3b7881ea-b4ec-11e7-be94-fabb0f1e9ffb_story.html?utm_term=.4c7b337a92d3 Former president George W. Bush on Thursday delivered a rare political speech in which he warned of threats to American democracy and a decay of civic engagement, a message that was interpreted as a rebuke of President Trump’s divisive leadership style. ... oooOO}{OOooo ... Well, we elected a man who isn't a politician/statesman, who is seriously ignorant about governance, & doesn't want to learn. We did it. We elected him while I'm sure most of us knew he was grossly unqualified for the job.
Friday, October 20, 2017 3:05 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY: Decidedly so. SGG
Friday, October 20, 2017 3:39 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY: There might be those who think along the lines that one party is the root of all evil. I think that person or persons should be dealt with on an individual basis. But to try and high-jack a thread because you don't agree with a person's POV; or YOU feel that it doesn't fairly bring into question, or fairly deal, with the topic at hand.....well, I suggest that if it offends your sensibilities to that degree, then, by all means, do not contribute to the thread in question. Boycott the thread, if you will, in protest. Several here have made contributions that I would consider off-topic, but I have not asked them to leave or refrain from offering responses. Might I suggest that if you feel a response/contribution to this thread is off-topic/not to your liking; then, don't respond to that particular response. That person or persons will get the hint and choose to either stay on topic, or not offer up a response. Again, it is only a suggestion. You can do whatever floats your boat. Actually, I'll change my response in mid-answer: Go ahead, suggest away! Although I don't agree with you that this has become a Greatest Failures TrumpFest; you have every right to try and divert contributions to another thread. FEEL FREE TO DO SO!!! SGG I am interested in your definition of Establishment, and why you feel it a sticking point. I'm lost about your viewpoint.Of course, Trump is the best president ever. Establishment in terms of government is simply foundations, and tried and true formation of public institutions. As to why I feel it is a sticking point - just from the many times I read the word in responses and comments by various individuals with quote marks. Plus the response by some in the news talking also using quote marks in their rhetoric - as though established norms within our society are negative enemies of the people at large. Yes, there are those that take advantage of the system and use the masses as so much guinea pigs. But, like in any society, there are good and bad actors. SGG
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY: There might be those who think along the lines that one party is the root of all evil. I think that person or persons should be dealt with on an individual basis. But to try and high-jack a thread because you don't agree with a person's POV; or YOU feel that it doesn't fairly bring into question, or fairly deal, with the topic at hand.....well, I suggest that if it offends your sensibilities to that degree, then, by all means, do not contribute to the thread in question. Boycott the thread, if you will, in protest. Several here have made contributions that I would consider off-topic, but I have not asked them to leave or refrain from offering responses. Might I suggest that if you feel a response/contribution to this thread is off-topic/not to your liking; then, don't respond to that particular response. That person or persons will get the hint and choose to either stay on topic, or not offer up a response. Again, it is only a suggestion. You can do whatever floats your boat. Actually, I'll change my response in mid-answer: Go ahead, suggest away! Although I don't agree with you that this has become a Greatest Failures TrumpFest; you have every right to try and divert contributions to another thread. FEEL FREE TO DO SO!!! SGG I am interested in your definition of Establishment, and why you feel it a sticking point. I'm lost about your viewpoint.
Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY: There might be those who think along the lines that one party is the root of all evil. I think that person or persons should be dealt with on an individual basis. But to try and high-jack a thread because you don't agree with a person's POV; or YOU feel that it doesn't fairly bring into question, or fairly deal, with the topic at hand.....well, I suggest that if it offends your sensibilities to that degree, then, by all means, do not contribute to the thread in question. Boycott the thread, if you will, in protest. Several here have made contributions that I would consider off-topic, but I have not asked them to leave or refrain from offering responses. Might I suggest that if you feel a response/contribution to this thread is off-topic/not to your liking; then, don't respond to that particular response. That person or persons will get the hint and choose to either stay on topic, or not offer up a response. Again, it is only a suggestion. You can do whatever floats your boat. Actually, I'll change my response in mid-answer: Go ahead, suggest away! Although I don't agree with you that this has become a Greatest Failures TrumpFest; you have every right to try and divert contributions to another thread. FEEL FREE TO DO SO!!! SGG
Friday, October 20, 2017 3:46 AM
Quote:Now, about "draining the swamp". What IS "the swamp", anyway? IMHO it's those who represent a particular industry, rotating in and out of government, industry leadership positions, and lobbying. Those who excessively take into account the wishes of the 0.01% over the rest. Those who keep secrets from people so that they don't have a chance of evaluating the policy options before them, and so directing their representatives in government appropriately. in other words, those who do other than honestly and fairly representing/ working for the people who voted for them. SECOND was heading in that direction by suggesting that Presidents come and go, but the Pentagon (and its interests) always remain.
Friday, October 20, 2017 4:30 AM
Friday, October 20, 2017 4:42 AM
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY: There might be those who think along the lines that one party is the root of all evil. I think that person or persons should be dealt with on an individual basis. But to try and high-jack a thread because you don't agree with a person's POV; or YOU feel that it doesn't fairly bring into question, or fairly deal, with the topic at hand.....well, I suggest that if it offends your sensibilities to that degree, then, by all means, do not contribute to the thread in question. Boycott the thread, if you will, in protest. Several here have made contributions that I would consider off-topic, but I have not asked them to leave or refrain from offering responses. Might I suggest that if you feel a response/contribution to this thread is off-topic/not to your liking; then, don't respond to that particular response. That person or persons will get the hint and choose to either stay on topic, or not offer up a response. Again, it is only a suggestion. You can do whatever floats your boat. Actually, I'll change my response in mid-answer: Go ahead, suggest away! Although I don't agree with you that this has become a Greatest Failures TrumpFest; you have every right to try and divert contributions to another thread. FEEL FREE TO DO SO!!! SGG Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: This is turning into a "Trump's Greatest Failures" thread, but we already have one of those http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61905 and I think that title BEST expresses the topic of how people of ALL political persuasions see Trump's greatest failures, so I'm going to put my opinions about Trump's failures in there. I just want to make a comment to partisans of both stripes here: If you're a partisan - in other words, a die-hard defender of your party, everyone in it, and everything that it does - well I hope that description is enough to make you see the problem with that POV. But just it case it doesn't, I'm going to beat the point to death a little bit more: You're making the mistake of thinking that just because you think one party is "evil" that must mean that the other party is "good". But these are politicians. I doubt that you can find one honest one in any random set of 100, in either party. I acknowledge that there are a few more "good" politicians in the Democratic Party than in the GOP, but I can name them on the fingers of one hand; they make up a vanishingly small number no matter which party you look at and none of them achieve any significant, systemic, lasting benefit for the average person anyway. You have to judge the party as a whole. *** In fact, when I look at every single major problem that the USA has, from ... staggering wealth inequality to massive private debt to potentially unstable banks to the loss of the petrodollar to a failed health care policy to environmental collapse to loss of manufacturing to completely unbalanced trade to illegal immigrants to disunited public to loss of commonsense values to unemployment to loss of civil liberties to (add more here) ... every single problem in the USA was caused by our own politicians. It wasn't "Democrats" OR "Republicans", it was BOTH of them. Each party, in its own way, got us to this point of failure. Democrats try to put a sweet syrup on their defections while Republicans champion their actions as rightful policy, but in the end it took the combined effort of both parties, working for decades and decades, to get us to this point. At least, that's how I see it. I had conjured "Draining the Swamp" translated to "Trump's Greatest Achievements" and "Trump's Greatest Failures" was the opposite. I am interested in your definition of Establishment, and why you feel it a sticking point. I'm lost about your viewpoint. I also think that your absence in this thread during some feverish posting rates contributed to derailing. SIG's assertion that Party must be evaluated as a whole and not look at select goals and achievements of leaders within the Party is where she loses me, and seems to me to contribute to the Establishment problem.
Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY: There might be those who think along the lines that one party is the root of all evil. I think that person or persons should be dealt with on an individual basis. But to try and high-jack a thread because you don't agree with a person's POV; or YOU feel that it doesn't fairly bring into question, or fairly deal, with the topic at hand.....well, I suggest that if it offends your sensibilities to that degree, then, by all means, do not contribute to the thread in question. Boycott the thread, if you will, in protest. Several here have made contributions that I would consider off-topic, but I have not asked them to leave or refrain from offering responses. Might I suggest that if you feel a response/contribution to this thread is off-topic/not to your liking; then, don't respond to that particular response. That person or persons will get the hint and choose to either stay on topic, or not offer up a response. Again, it is only a suggestion. You can do whatever floats your boat. Actually, I'll change my response in mid-answer: Go ahead, suggest away! Although I don't agree with you that this has become a Greatest Failures TrumpFest; you have every right to try and divert contributions to another thread. FEEL FREE TO DO SO!!! SGG Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: This is turning into a "Trump's Greatest Failures" thread, but we already have one of those http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61905 and I think that title BEST expresses the topic of how people of ALL political persuasions see Trump's greatest failures, so I'm going to put my opinions about Trump's failures in there. I just want to make a comment to partisans of both stripes here: If you're a partisan - in other words, a die-hard defender of your party, everyone in it, and everything that it does - well I hope that description is enough to make you see the problem with that POV. But just it case it doesn't, I'm going to beat the point to death a little bit more: You're making the mistake of thinking that just because you think one party is "evil" that must mean that the other party is "good". But these are politicians. I doubt that you can find one honest one in any random set of 100, in either party. I acknowledge that there are a few more "good" politicians in the Democratic Party than in the GOP, but I can name them on the fingers of one hand; they make up a vanishingly small number no matter which party you look at and none of them achieve any significant, systemic, lasting benefit for the average person anyway. You have to judge the party as a whole. *** In fact, when I look at every single major problem that the USA has, from ... staggering wealth inequality to massive private debt to potentially unstable banks to the loss of the petrodollar to a failed health care policy to environmental collapse to loss of manufacturing to completely unbalanced trade to illegal immigrants to disunited public to loss of commonsense values to unemployment to loss of civil liberties to (add more here) ... every single problem in the USA was caused by our own politicians. It wasn't "Democrats" OR "Republicans", it was BOTH of them. Each party, in its own way, got us to this point of failure. Democrats try to put a sweet syrup on their defections while Republicans champion their actions as rightful policy, but in the end it took the combined effort of both parties, working for decades and decades, to get us to this point. At least, that's how I see it.
Friday, October 20, 2017 10:31 AM
Quote:Now, about "draining the swamp". What IS "the swamp", anyway? IMHO it's those who represent a particular industry, rotating in and out of government, industry leadership positions, and lobbying. Those who excessively take into account the wishes of the 0.01% over the rest. Those who keep secrets from people so that they don't have a chance of evaluating the policy options before them, and so directing their representatives in government appropriately. in other words, those who do other than honestly and fairly representing/ working for the people who voted for them. SECOND was heading in that direction by suggesting that Presidents come and go, but the Pentagon (and its interests) always remain.- SIGNY Exactly, in terms of what constitutes "the swamp," my point exactly. It is my contention that Trump and his cohort, have managed to create their own "swamp" by doing almost exactly what you describe above: The representation of a "precious" few and misrepresenting themselves as the will of the people. "Rotating" positions much like a game of 3-Card Monte, the old "shell" game where you have to follow the pea and guess under which cup it is; meanwhile, as you stand in the crowd gawking at the shells being craftily manipulated, a pickpocket is going about the crowd slithering in and out of pockets. - SHINY
Quote: ..."who represent a particular industry" or group, or way of thinking; always pointing fingers and assigning blame for the woes of that group or "industry." I see the formation of a new "swamp" one that redirects the flow of information, wealth and power - Fake News, Propaganda, the disoulation of the present power grid and the birth of a new sinister and vile corrupt elite. Yes, I fully understand that there exists a power grid that the masses are manipulated by; but the newness of that "new" power structure does not shield it from complete and utter corruption. You are, in effect, rotating out the old and replacing it with the new power base.- SINY
Quote: A rose by any other name still smells...to borrow a phrase from the Bard. It is this irony that compelled me to propose this thread. Imagine that Hillary had won. What would you be saying? Pretty much what you said above: About the evils of her admministration manipulating the very institutions you describe above. So what, IYHO, has changed? Apply those very elements to the "new" power grid that is looking to replace the old. Ask the question with each item you accurately depict in your statement. Start at the top. The president, it doesn't get much more "top" than that. And what has he done? He's replaced the "establishment" with "his" people, has he not?
Quote: And what, pray tell, have they done to dismantle the "establishment?" They have appointed people that favor "the cause" - to make America Great Again...which we all know means for it to lean a certain way (I attribute that anxious bit of business to the prediction that by 2050, the good ole USA will be more than 50 percent people of color; or what is now known as the minorities - black, Hispanic, Asian, India etc) That "Wall" should have been built the moment the first Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock.
Quote:It will not work, merely because this land is too big, plus there's the Canadian border and all the ships at sea (how do you think the Chinese get here to our teaming shores?)
Quote: My comment was refering to the swapping out of the "establishment" (rather the old establishment) for the "new establishment" which Bannon and company are looking to secure spots for the future of "his people." Plus he wants, along with those like-minded people, to ensure that things get done the "right way." Of course, all this is mere speculation on my part, what the hell do I know. So, go ahead, ask yourself those very questions, the one that you pose in the quoted statement above: industry leadership positions - the placing of Trump cohorts in key cabinet positions, as well as key posts throughout the land - education, juidicial, banking, foreign relations, commerce, Big Pharma, etc. Representatives - Senate and House, let's get those soulless cretins out and replace them with God-fearing old white men Juidicial - Trump has often talked about replacing Supreme Court justices with "his" guys There's also the painstakingly careful dismantling of the DOJ and the Circuit Court judges throughout the land I could go on, but you're not a dumb person; you could see what it is they're doing right? I dare say that I don't think that Trump thought of this on his own. He's just a puppet...the guy could barely read a teleprompter. This goes to the very tiny percentage of folks carrying on like the Greek Gods of old. High atop Mt. Olympus, carefully plotting and conniving to manipulate man into wars, famine, avarice and downright genocide. "Hey look, a hurricane. Shall we help? Wait, let's see what happens....after all, they are mere peons. That'll teach 'em to be born on an island. Say, if we wait long enough, we could probably get the land for dirt cheap. Then we can renovate and sell off pieces to those so-called "middle class" - we'll make a fortune. Plus we'll have another corner of the world to ourselves." (The above is just a dramatization of what I think Greek Gods would sound like in the modern world).
Friday, October 20, 2017 11:47 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY: Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY: Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: This is turning into a "Trump's Greatest Failures" thread, but we already have one of those http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61905 and I think that title BEST expresses the topic of how people of ALL political persuasions see Trump's greatest failures, so I'm going to put my opinions about Trump's failures in there. I just want to make a comment to partisans of both stripes here: If you're a partisan - in other words, a die-hard defender of your party, everyone in it, and everything that it does - well I hope that description is enough to make you see the problem with that POV. But just it case it doesn't, I'm going to beat the point to death a little bit more: You're making the mistake of thinking that just because you think one party is "evil" that must mean that the other party is "good". But these are politicians. I doubt that you can find one honest one in any random set of 100, in either party. I acknowledge that there are a few more "good" politicians in the Democratic Party than in the GOP, but I can name them on the fingers of one hand; they make up a vanishingly small number no matter which party you look at and none of them achieve any significant, systemic, lasting benefit for the average person anyway. You have to judge the party as a whole. *** In fact, when I look at every single major problem that the USA has, from ... staggering wealth inequality to massive private debt to potentially unstable banks to the loss of the petrodollar to a failed health care policy to environmental collapse to loss of manufacturing to completely unbalanced trade to illegal immigrants to disunited public to loss of commonsense values to unemployment to loss of civil liberties to (add more here) ... every single problem in the USA was caused by our own politicians. It wasn't "Democrats" OR "Republicans", it was BOTH of them. Each party, in its own way, got us to this point of failure. Democrats try to put a sweet syrup on their defections while Republicans champion their actions as rightful policy, but in the end it took the combined effort of both parties, working for decades and decades, to get us to this point. At least, that's how I see it. There might be those who think along the lines that one party is the root of all evil. I think that person or persons should be dealt with on an individual basis. But to try and high-jack a thread because you don't agree with a person's POV; or YOU feel that it doesn't fairly bring into question, or fairly deal, with the topic at hand.....well, I suggest that if it offends your sensibilities to that degree, then, by all means, do not contribute to the thread in question. Boycott the thread, if you will, in protest. Several here have made contributions that I would consider off-topic, but I have not asked them to leave or refrain from offering responses. Might I suggest that if you feel a response/contribution to this thread is off-topic/not to your liking; then, don't respond to that particular response. That person or persons will get the hint and choose to either stay on topic, or not offer up a response. Again, it is only a suggestion. You can do whatever floats your boat. Actually, I'll change my response in mid-answer: Go ahead, suggest away! Although I don't agree with you that this has become a Greatest Failures TrumpFest; you have every right to try and divert contributions to another thread. FEEL FREE TO DO SO!!! SGG I had conjured "Draining the Swamp" translated to "Trump's Greatest Achievements" and "Trump's Greatest Failures" was the opposite. I am interested in your definition of Establishment, and why you feel it a sticking point. I'm lost about your viewpoint. I also think that your absence in this thread during some feverish posting rates contributed to derailing. SIG's assertion that Party must be evaluated as a whole and not look at select goals and achievements of leaders within the Party is where she loses me, and seems to me to contribute to the Establishment problem.JSF, Let me say this; as I tend to fly by the seat of my pants as I write, I formulated an idea and midstream I realized a completely different response that I did not think of when I began writing. It ocurred to me that the very thing I was protesting against, I was asking others to do. Namely, to post elsewhere becuase I did not agree with their POV or suggestions within their post. It was strange, because it came to me as I was writing (which happens to me on rare ocassions). So, my philosophy is "live and let live." If someone cares to post something completely off track from the theme of the thread....Let it be! This site was buiilt becuase we believed in an ideal, a universe, if you will, where one could be free from constricting rules and regs contrary to our pioneering roots. "Go West, young man" I am all for continuity, but sometimes, especially if the comment is close to that of the thread, you just have to let it be... Post to your heart's content, post negative, positive, it doesn't matter. It will all come to a middle at some point. Should you wish to divert attention away, go ahead, it doesn't matter. Each of us will get our moment in the sun and feel accomplishment. So, if you feel a comment is misplaced or misguided, FEEL FREE...it's all good! SGG
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: Quote:Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY: Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: This is turning into a "Trump's Greatest Failures" thread, but we already have one of those http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=61905 and I think that title BEST expresses the topic of how people of ALL political persuasions see Trump's greatest failures, so I'm going to put my opinions about Trump's failures in there. I just want to make a comment to partisans of both stripes here: If you're a partisan - in other words, a die-hard defender of your party, everyone in it, and everything that it does - well I hope that description is enough to make you see the problem with that POV. But just it case it doesn't, I'm going to beat the point to death a little bit more: You're making the mistake of thinking that just because you think one party is "evil" that must mean that the other party is "good". But these are politicians. I doubt that you can find one honest one in any random set of 100, in either party. I acknowledge that there are a few more "good" politicians in the Democratic Party than in the GOP, but I can name them on the fingers of one hand; they make up a vanishingly small number no matter which party you look at and none of them achieve any significant, systemic, lasting benefit for the average person anyway. You have to judge the party as a whole. *** In fact, when I look at every single major problem that the USA has, from ... staggering wealth inequality to massive private debt to potentially unstable banks to the loss of the petrodollar to a failed health care policy to environmental collapse to loss of manufacturing to completely unbalanced trade to illegal immigrants to disunited public to loss of commonsense values to unemployment to loss of civil liberties to (add more here) ... every single problem in the USA was caused by our own politicians. It wasn't "Democrats" OR "Republicans", it was BOTH of them. Each party, in its own way, got us to this point of failure. Democrats try to put a sweet syrup on their defections while Republicans champion their actions as rightful policy, but in the end it took the combined effort of both parties, working for decades and decades, to get us to this point. At least, that's how I see it. There might be those who think along the lines that one party is the root of all evil. I think that person or persons should be dealt with on an individual basis. But to try and high-jack a thread because you don't agree with a person's POV; or YOU feel that it doesn't fairly bring into question, or fairly deal, with the topic at hand.....well, I suggest that if it offends your sensibilities to that degree, then, by all means, do not contribute to the thread in question. Boycott the thread, if you will, in protest. Several here have made contributions that I would consider off-topic, but I have not asked them to leave or refrain from offering responses. Might I suggest that if you feel a response/contribution to this thread is off-topic/not to your liking; then, don't respond to that particular response. That person or persons will get the hint and choose to either stay on topic, or not offer up a response. Again, it is only a suggestion. You can do whatever floats your boat. Actually, I'll change my response in mid-answer: Go ahead, suggest away! Although I don't agree with you that this has become a Greatest Failures TrumpFest; you have every right to try and divert contributions to another thread. FEEL FREE TO DO SO!!! SGG I had conjured "Draining the Swamp" translated to "Trump's Greatest Achievements" and "Trump's Greatest Failures" was the opposite. I am interested in your definition of Establishment, and why you feel it a sticking point. I'm lost about your viewpoint. I also think that your absence in this thread during some feverish posting rates contributed to derailing. SIG's assertion that Party must be evaluated as a whole and not look at select goals and achievements of leaders within the Party is where she loses me, and seems to me to contribute to the Establishment problem.
Saturday, October 21, 2017 6:19 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: But as a disruptive force against the status quo swamp, he's an EXCELLENT choice, and some of his appointees - Tillerson and Mnuchin (who is a business turnaround expert; he took several failing USA steel companies to success) are even better choices, and I have to give him credit for picking those people.
Saturday, October 21, 2017 7:20 AM
Quote:You missed a person: Kevin Hassett, the White House’s chief economist,- SECONDHAND
Saturday, October 21, 2017 8:54 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Quote:You missed a person: Kevin Hassett, the White House’s chief economist,- SECONDHAND Apparently the only way you can shoehorn your someone else's opinion into the discussion is to put words in my mouth. You've got a major obsession going, don't you? You might want to get some counseling for that.
Saturday, October 21, 2017 2:04 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Hello, Signym! Are you aware that Trump picked Trump's chief economist?
Saturday, October 21, 2017 2:39 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Quote:Originally posted by second: Hello, Signym! Are you aware that Trump picked Trump's chief economist? Hello SECOND! Yeah, I knew, but SO WHAT? What does that have to do with anything I posted? I already acceded to the fact that Trump brings his own swamp to DC. I've already posted that I didn't expect Trump to be an honest, or even competent, politician. I called him a "loose cannon" many times BEFORE the election, and said that his morals were about on-par with Hillary's (whom, you might have noticed, I despise). There is very little that you could post about Trump that would change my opinion of him because my expectations were already pretty low. So given all that, why would anyone vote for Trump? I've explained my POV already, so I'll just leave you with that thought. ----------- Pity would be no more, If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
Sunday, October 22, 2017 2:04 AM
Quote: You’re wishing death and destruction on America, Signym.
Quote:And your complete indifference to Trump's economist and his Treasury Secretary, who you praised in a previous post, spreading lies to support a tax change that benefits Trump is very telling about you.
Sunday, October 22, 2017 2:18 AM
Sunday, October 22, 2017 4:40 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Oonjerah: A close, personal relative says, "He certainly deserves to be impeached, but then a president Mike Pence would be just as bad." I don't know Pence.
Quote: The Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official committed one of these acts. The Constitution defines treason in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Constitution does not define bribery. It is a crime that has long existed in English and American common law. It takes place when a person gives an official money or gifts to influence the official’s behavior in office. For example, if defendant Smith pays federal Judge Jones $10,000 to find Smith not guilty, the crime of bribery has occurred. ... In all the articles of impeachment that the House has drawn, no official has been charged with treason. (The closest to a charge of treason was one federal judge who was impeached and convicted for siding with the South and taking a position as a Confederate judge during the Civil War.) Two officials have been charged with bribery. The remaining charges against all the other officials fall under the category of “high crimes and misdemeanors [against the State].” ... The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve. ... In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” For the more than 200 years since the Constitution was adopted, Congress has seriously considered impeachment only 18 times. Thirteen of these cases involved federal judges. The “high crimes and misdemeanors” that the House charged against these judges included being habitually drunk, showing favoritism on the bench, using judicial power unlawfully, using the office for financial gain, unlawfully punishing people for contempt of court, submitting false expense accounts, getting special deals from parties appearing before the court, bullying people in open court, filing false income tax returns, making false statements while under oath, and disclosing confidential information. Only three of the 18 impeachment cases have involved a president — Andrew Johnson in 1868, Richard Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998. It’s important to take a brief look at these three cases to understand how Congress has interpreted “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Andrew Johnson Andrew Johnson was the only senator from a Southern state who stayed loyal to the union during the Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln, seeking to reconcile with the South, tapped Johnson, a Democrat, as his vice-presidential running mate in 1864. When Lincoln was assassinated at the war’s end in 1865, Johnson assumed the presidency. He immediately ran into trouble with the Republican-dominated Congress over Reconstruction of the South. The Radical Republicans supported military rule in the South and voting rights and redistribution of land for blacks. Johnson disagreed and favored a quick return to civilian rule. The two sides grew increasingly farther apart as Congress repeatedly passed Reconstruction legislation, Johnson vetoed it, and Congress overrode his veto. Over Johnson’s veto, Congress passed a Tenure of Office Act, which required Johnson to get permission from Congress before firing any member of the executive branch who had been approved by Congress. Johnson responded by firing the secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, a Radical Republican. His firing violated the Tenure of Office Act. But Johnson believed the act was unconstitutional. The House passed 11 articles of impeachment. Eight involved Johnson’s violations of the Tenure of Office Act. One charged him with sending orders through improper channels. Another accused him of conspiring against Congress, citing a statement he made about Congress not representing all the states. The last summarized the other 10 charges and charged him with failing to enforce the Reconstruction Acts. At the end of the Senate trial, only three charges were brought to a vote. Johnson was saved from conviction on each by one vote. History has not judged well those who brought the charges against Johnson. The charges are generally seen as politically motivated, based on the extreme disagreement over Reconstruction between Congress and the president. Richard Nixon ... Nixon may or may not have had advance knowledge of the burglary. He probably feared, however, that its investigation might uncover evidence of political spying and the illegal use of campaign funds on the part of his administration. So he took an active role in obstructing the investigation. He discussed raising hush money for the burglars and enlisted the FBI and CIA in squelching the investigation. In 1974, the House Judiciary committee voted three articles of impeachment. One accused Nixon of obstruction of justice. Another accused him of abuse of power. The third charged him with contempt of Congress for defying the committee’s requests to produce documents. Nixon resigned the presidency before the whole House voted on the articles. ... The same year Yale Law School professor Charles L. Black published a highly influential book, Impeachment: A Handbook. Black agreed that impeachment is a grave step that should be taken most cautiously. Impeaching a president overturns an election. Black’s research led him to the conclusion that a president should be impeached only for “serious assaults on the integrity of the processes of government,” or for “such crimes as would so stain a president as to make his continuance in office dangerous to public order.” Black’s book cited two examples of presidential misconduct that would not merit impeachment: (1) a president brings a female minor across a state line for “immoral purposes” in violation of federal law and (2) a president obstructs justice by helping hide marijuana for a White House intern. Black considered it “preposterous” to impeach a president for these acts. These examples would prove relevant to President Clinton’s impeachment case more than 20 years later. Bill Clinton ... During his first term, an independent counsel was appointed to investigate Whitewater, an Arkansas land deal involving Clinton that had taken place about 20 years previously. The counsel’s investigation later expanded to include scandals surrounding the firing of White House staff in its travel office, the misuse of FBI files, and an illicit affair that the president had with a White House intern. In 1998, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr issued a report to the House Judiciary Committee. It found 11 possible impeachable offenses, all related to the intern scandal. Based on the independent counsel’s investigation, the House Judiciary Committee voted four articles of impeachment. The first article accused the president of committing perjury before a grand jury convened by the independent counsel. The second charged him with providing “perjurious, false and misleading testimony” in a civil case related to the scandal. The third accused him of obstructing justice to “delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence” of evidence related to the scandal. The fourth charged that he misused and abused his office by deceiving the American public, misleading his cabinet and other employees so that they would mislead the public, asserting executive privilege to hinder the investigation, and refusing to respond to the committee and misleading the committee about the scandal.
Sunday, October 22, 2017 8:27 AM
Sunday, October 22, 2017 10:37 PM
1KIKI
Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.
Sunday, October 22, 2017 10:41 PM
Monday, October 23, 2017 8:31 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: original NYTimes article without SECOND's editing |The Democrats in Their Labyrinth
Monday, October 23, 2017 9:30 AM
Quote:You failed to include the quotes at the each of those original articles saying that 1kiki and Signym's international conspiracy theories are big bags of make-believe shit. Shame on you. It is as if you don't want the people to know. =SECONDRATE
Monday, October 23, 2017 5:00 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: No such quote appears in my pageview. So SECONDRATE, why don't you BRING THAT QUOTE HERE so that we can ALL see it? Unless, of course, you're lying again.
Monday, October 23, 2017 6:06 PM
Monday, October 23, 2017 7:09 PM
Monday, October 23, 2017 7:18 PM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: So, you admit you lied about articles you linked. Again. No surprise there.
Monday, October 23, 2017 9:29 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: ... and are 1kiki and Signym a team now, sitting in adjacent desks?
Quote: You're either a pair of Russian trolls
Quote: or a pair of American nuts.
Quote: 1kiki, you've given up the pretense that you were ever a Bernie supporter, haven't you?
Monday, October 23, 2017 9:36 PM
Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:29 AM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: No such quote appears in my pageview. So SECONDRATE, why don't you BRING THAT QUOTE HERE so that we can ALL see it? Unless, of course, you're lying again. Signym, you're every bit as smart and attentive to details as Trump. Analyze this for errors that only exist inside your head: www.vox.com/policy-and-pol itics/2017/10/23/16522456/trump-bartiromo-transcript Over the course of the interview, Trump also claims to be working on a major infrastructure bill, a major welfare reform bill, and an unspecified economic development bill of some kind. Under almost any other past president, that kind of thing would be considered a huge news-making get for an interviewer. But even Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory. On some level, it’s a little bit funny. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:34 AM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: So, you admit you lied about articles you linked. Again. No surprise there.I do not admit to lying and are 1kiki and Signym a team now, sitting in adjacent desks? You're either a pair of Russian trolls or a pair of American nuts. 1kiki, you've given up the pretense that you were ever a Bernie supporter, haven't you? Or are you a replacement for the "1kiki" of last year, the one who was so supportive of Democrat Bernie? As Russian trolls, I can admire that you serve your country, earn a living, and write well. If you live in America, well, I still admire that you write well; 1kiki and Signym could give Trump lessons about staying on message and remaining focused: Trump keeps getting distracted by his desire to tell a name-dropping story about the owner of the New England Patriots. He forgets what is false and misleading about his tax cuts. Indeed, the swamp is in Trump's brain: BARTIROMO: If the top earners pay 80 percent of the taxes, why are you so afraid to cut taxes on the top earners? TRUMP: I think this, look, you know, I am very happy with the way I’ve done part of this in my civilian life, all right. BARTIROMO: Of course. This is not about — TRUMP: Other people — well, it’s about me representing rich people. BARTIROMO: Okay. TRUMP: Representing — being representative of rich people. Very interesting to me Bob Kraft was down. He was very nice. He owns the Patriots. He gave me a Super Bowl ring a month ago. And he — BARTIROMO: Well, Putin took his — TRUMP: Which was very nice. That’s right. But he left this beautiful ring, and I immediately give it to the White House and they put it some place, and that’s the way it is. BARTIROMO: That’s great. TRUMP: He said to me — he’s a good man. He said to me you have to do us all a favor, give the tax decrease to the middle class, we don’t need it. We don’t need it. We don’t want it. Give it to the middle class. And, I’ve had many people, very wealthy people, tell me the very same thing. I’ve had very few say I want more, I want more. Then Trump meanders off message and admits that what he’s really backing is a huge tax cut for rich business owners: TRUMP: So that’s a big factor, but we have so many things that are going to be so great; bringing the corporate tax down maybe is the most important. And we have a lot of most important, but bringing it down from 35 down to 20 percent, that’s a massive — that’s the biggest that we’ve ever done. BARTIROMO: It’s a big deal in the corporate rate for sure. TRUMP: That’s a big deal for companies; that’s a big deal for investment. I think one of the other ones is expensing, you know when you write something off in one year as opposed to, you know, over many years, I think that’s going to be tremendous. www.vox.com/policy-and-poli tics/2017/10/23/16522456/trump-bartiromo-transcript
Tuesday, October 24, 2017 4:58 AM
Quote:Hell just froze over. Again!
Quote:I don't view Trump as an honest, or even competent, politician.
Quote:But when you bring your own swamp with you, the OLD swampers don't let go of power without a fight.
Quote:Establishment" Republicans were just as reluctant to allow Trump to the ascendancy as Democrats. Even now, the support that Trump has from the GOP is grudging, and Dems downright hate him: he's a DC outsider, an interloper.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017 7:36 AM
Quote: I'm going to need time to unpack this......whatever you call it, response. But I felt the need to comment, however briefly, on a few things... And what exactly does this mean: Quote:Hell just froze over. Again!
Quote:I don't view Trump as an honest, or even competent, politician.- SIGNY I agree except, I think Trump is the worst of politicians. At least the parts he plays at. - SHINY
Quote:But when you bring your own swamp with you, the OLD swampers don't let go of power without a fight.- SIGNY I agree. Hell now will freeze over.- SHINY
Quote:Establishment" Republicans were just as reluctant to allow Trump to the ascendancy as Democrats. Even now, the support that Trump has from the GOP is grudging, and Dems downright hate him: he's a DC outsider, an interloper. - SIGNY An interloper he is, an outsider he's not. Interloper because nobody wanted him; for good reason...He's an idiot. He's made money in business, but he's a destroyer. He uses the system to "steal" his millions through chicanery and intimidation. It's a whole new ballgame when it comes to politics; of which he knows little, but he has pursued the presidency and has played the game (poorly, but he's played). He even said so himself; while addressing the US Coast Guard Academy recently - "No politician has been treated worse" in regards to the media attention(May 17, 2017).- SHINY
Quote:... nobody wanted him; for good reason...He's an idiot.
Quote:He uses the system to "steal" his millions through chicanery and intimidation.
Quote:It's a whole new ballgame when it comes to politics; of which he knows little
Quote:"No politician has been treated worse" in regards to the media attention
Tuesday, October 24, 2017 8:47 AM
Quote:Originally posted by 1kiki: And your repeated attempts to claim otherwise are just ... more trolling. Troll.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:40 PM
Quote:Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: I don't quite get how you derailed so much to avoid a simple and coherent answer to a reasonable question - or even repeated question, yet at the same time go on a rant which might be tangential at best. Are you off your meds?
Tuesday, October 24, 2017 3:08 PM
Wednesday, October 25, 2017 8:02 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: I bring this up, not to excuse Trump but to remind you that BOTH party candidates make promises that they don't keep. . . . why don't you take a realistic look at both parties and insist on something better? Just remember, SECOND, if there was a swamp in DC, Obama was part of it. And so was Hillary.
Wednesday, October 25, 2017 2:30 PM
Quote: You remind me of the Jehovah's Witnesses and their complaints about government. Their faith is the wicked die in Armageddon and God shall rule perfectly forever after. That is why I quit them.
Quote: I don't want perfect or even pretty good. Trump is enough if he'd make his old income tax returns public knowledge, as he promised many, many times. Just that information would keep him within the boundary of reasonable behavior. And placing his businesses into an actual blind trust, instead of his make-believe trust, would go even further. Another promise not kept, and unlike Obama, Trump has no possible way to blame Congress for Trump not keeping those promises.
Wednesday, October 25, 2017 7:55 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: Judging by the amount and triviality of the criticism that you've heaped on Trump on this board, NONE of that would satisfy you! . . . clearly you still don't recognize how enmeshed the deep state - the swamp, if you will- is with the DNC, and the DNC is with the dee . . .
Thursday, October 26, 2017 6:44 AM
Thursday, October 26, 2017 8:21 AM
Thursday, October 26, 2017 11:38 AM
Thursday, October 26, 2017 12:24 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SIGNYM: SECOND, you STILL don't get it, do you? I fully acknowledge that Trump is doing some things that are horrible for the middle class. There is nothing you can tell me that would change my view of Trump. I KNOW he's bringing his swamp with him. I KNOW that he represents a segment of the elite- what I call the "national" capitalists. In fact, I will tell you .... since you're into "motivations" and "feelings" ... that like many wealthy, he probably doesn't see any difference between what benefits him and what benefits America because ... well, hell, he and people like him ARE America. L'etat. cest moi. I suspect that he truly believes in trickle-down; that once capitalists like him (national ones) are allowed a bigger piece of the pie, then the economy will blossom and everyone's boat will be lifted. Yes, I think that Trump is self-referencing and fatuous enough to actually believe that. I also thought he would be a loose cannon. And morally, I thought that he and Hillary were about on-par, altho I did give Trump a slight edge. I think I said most of this even BEFORE the election. I even said that there was no way in hell that Trump could revive the economy. And knowing all this, I still thought Hillary was a worse choice. And looking into the future from now, I still say that the Dems would stab Americans in the back ....again ... just as badly or worse, but in a different way. Because they HAVE stabbed Americans in the back already. So, what were you going to say about Trump that was going to change my mind? Stop recycling your old arguments ad nauseam. Give it your best shot, hon, because so far you haven't touched me.
Thursday, October 26, 2017 1:35 PM
Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:29 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Trump shows his brilliance in this quote about Chinese President Xi Jinping: "He’s a powerful man. I happen to think he’s a very good person. Now with that being said, he represents China, I represent the USA, so, you know, there’s going to always be conflict. But we have a very good relationship. People say we have the best relationship of any president-president, because he’s called president also. Now some people might call him the king of China. But he’s called president. But we have a very good relationship and that’s a positive thing. And it would be good to have that relationship with Russia and other countries, too." Trump is unpopular around the world. That makes it difficult for democratically elected leaders to engage in the same level of Trump flattery as the dictators in China and Russia, which may have given Trump a poor impression of the various prime ministers of Europe and the Commonwealth. www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/26/16552362/lou-dobbs-trump-transcript Replacement-level Republicanism, minus competence The truly striking thing about Trump, nine months in, is not the awe-inspiring scale of accomplishments that Dobbs claims to see. It’s that after an extraordinarily contentious primary season in which Trump put forward many profoundly heterodox policy ideas, we have a president in the White House whose strongest performance comes when giving a decent rendition of Chamber of Commerce talking points on one aspect of a corporate income tax cut. There’s no actual plan here to cut prescription drug prices. There isn’t even any talk any more of “terrific” health insurance programs that will “cover everyone.” Trump’s not pretending any more than he’s going to raise taxes on the rich, he’s not talking about $1 trillion infrastructure investments, and he’s certainly not burning the midnight oil coming up with a Trumpian policy agenda. He’s just kind of bopping along with more vulgarity and corruption and less discipline and policy knowledge than a normal president. Meanwhile, a Republican Party that’s no longer really divided on policy is tearing itself apart between a faction that can see the plain reality in front of them and a majority group that, like Dobbs, insists on pretending that their party’s unpopular and not-very-able leader is in fact a leader of world-historical proportions.
Thursday, October 26, 2017 2:31 PM
Quote:Originally posted by second: Signym, if you want to bring down the wealth of the top 1%, then your ideal Trump would be raising taxes on the 1%. But he's not. He seeks to lower them. What Trump is doing is the opposite of what any Democrat would do. Signym, if you want to improve the health of the bottom 99%, then your ideal Trump would have an ideal Trumpcare plan. But he doesn't have a plan. What Trump is doing is the opposite of what any Democrat would do. And a final generalized complaint about Trump doing what no Democrat would do. (I chose the wall only as an example; choose a better project closer to your heart): Signym, if you want the Texas/Mexico wall built, then your ideal Trump would not have deliberately alienated Senators Flake and Corker. Flake and Corker will be in office until January 2019. That’s an eternity in politics. There could be more Republican Senators who haven't announced their antipathy to Trump because they are not resigning. Remember, Republicans only have a two-seat majority in the Senate. Your ideal Trump needs their votes in 2017 and 2018 to build that wall. If you don't care about the wall, there must be a few other things Signym might want passed that can't pass because Trump is too good at making the wrong kind of enemies. Good luck, Signym, with your hopes for Trump. The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL